OneDnD Rogue Playtest Discussion

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
. You're right that it doesn't make you any more correct than me. And I'm aware that it is a common viewpoint. So if you don't think that it made your opinion more valid, why was it important to mention? At least to me, you didn't make it clear of your intention.
Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it. You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you, after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Because you were suggesting I (and others) didn't understand and that you were objectively correct and there could be no debate about it.
Note the "probably" in my "Rogues have probably gotten buffed overall" statement. I didn't say it was 100% objectively true that my current view of the rogue is correct. It's uncertain how the Rogue will turn out in the long run. But the class got a bunch of buffs. That's objectively true. Their power has been significantly increased in a lot of ways. Whether or not the buffs increase their power to make up for the reaction/booming blade Sneak Attack and Hand Crossbows is undetermined and dependent on a lot of factors. A lot of the buffs weren't as situational.
You even called someone a liar for not agreeing with you
They were not saying that rogues got buffed/nerfed overall. They said that Rogues got nerfed with no buffs at all. Which is flat-out untrue. And I didn't accuse them of lying, I said that their post was either a lie or they somehow missed a lot in the Rogue document.
, after you arbitrarily listed quantities (but not qualities) of plusses and minuses and came out with a positive number for your arbitrary count of buffs and nerfs. If I am not alone in my opinion that your perspective is not well shared that doesn't in itself make my opinion correct but it does suggest you're also not objectively correct with no debate around the topic, right?
I was trying to give a complete and objective account of all of the changes to the Rogue and measuring out how significant all of them were. I was trying to objectively measure the quantity and quality of all of the buffs. That's why I mentioned the number of buffs were higher than the number of nerfs and commented on most of the nerfs/buffs to explain how useful/detrimental the change is.

And, no, other people agreeing with you does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
And, no, other people agreeing with you does not somehow suggest that my view is any less likely to be correct. That is an appeal to popularity fallacy. There are a lot of topics that have quite a few people agreeing with the objectively incorrect view. The only thing you not being alone in your opinion suggests is that other people agree with you. Not the likelihood you are of being correct.
That part I highlighted? When I say you're not having this discussion in good faith, this is what I mean. I didn't say or imply what you just claimed. I made it super clear that wasn't what I was claiming. You knew I had made that clear, repeated it back to me, and then once again lied about my position.

We're done. But don't complain I was somehow unfair to you. I was very fair for quite some time and gave you lots of opportunities to stop behaving that way.
 

I didn't say he represents the majority of players in general, I said this video (which is not just him) outlines a lot of the issues others are highlighting right now with this class. I think it's worth watching, even if you disagree, just to see what some think are the issues here in a way which is well articulated.

I have seen it and they said nothing I did not see myself. I stand by my assessment.
It is good to shutdown "loopholes" (as Chris called it) and instead buff the class, so it does not need such things.

Improving two weapon fighting is a start (although I now can't see why any rogue would not want to dual wield... I rather liked the balance). Lets see how one handed amd two handed weapon fighting gets buffed.
 


Staffan

Legend
I never play a rogue, but what I notice about my friend that does?

One attack per round isn't as cool as the many attacks a fighter gets. I get sneak attack does more damage, but something feels off there in combat. They obviously matter for locks and traps and stuff.....but they seem lesser in combat to me (unlike spellcasters).
A thought about how to make rogues more fun in combat: give them some debuffs along the lines of maneuvers, but flavored as dirty tricks. Possibly with some additional options by subclass (e.g. arcane trickster does something magic-based, thief does something sneaky, and assassin uses poisons)
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Nothing like watching people go back and forth accusing others of doing the things that they themselves are also doing. Why can't we all just get along?

But more seriously: I agree that the new rogue is slightly buffed from the 2014 rogue, assuming that they will fix being able to sneak attack on a readied action (I'm less concerned with opportunity attacks, but I'd be okay if they fixed that too).

I heartily disagree that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels; or 2) also apply to other classes. You can say you don't like it, but you can't claim it's nerfed. You have to compare the 2014 Rogue to the UA Rogue directly.

I mean, you can claim nerf if you like, I guess, but you're not making a fair or logical argument. You're making one based on how you feel about the changes, not about what they are. It seems to me that a lot of complaining has its start (don't get me wrong - it's fine to complain - it's fine to not like the UA!) in incomplete understanding of the changes.

Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.

You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I heartily disagree that it's at all fair to claim that they are nerfed, and then discount all the buffs that are 1) at higher levels;

If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.

But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability. If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf to the rogue population.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
If you mean discount in the ignore sense, then sure, you can't leave Subtle Strikes off the list of buffs.

But I do think you can discount it in the sense of not weighting it heavily when the vast overwhelming majority of rogues are losing a level 3 ability, and the vast overwhelming majority will never get a level 13 ability. If Steady Aim ends up removed, and Subtle Strikes stays where it is, then that is a net nerf to the rogue population.

Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.

Steady Aim is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Well, you weigh it where you do - when comparing the 2014 Rogue's higher levels to the UA Rogue's higher levels.

Steady Aim is an optional rule from Tasha's. I don't think it will be "removed", nor yet do I think it will be "added". It will remain what it is: An optional rule from Tasha's. Use it if you like. It has nothing to do with whether a 2014 Rogue is more or less buffnerfed than a UA one.

I don't think I agree with that. It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc. I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I don't think I agree with that. It won't be 2024 PHB + Tasha's/Zanathar's/Etc. I think the assumption is that One D&D will supercede all previous sources, and as of this latest iteration, there's no Steady Aim.
That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)

So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. But NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.

You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.
 
Last edited:

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
That's not how they've ever said that the 50th Anniversary books will work, far or less the playtest (which explicitly states that all 5e rules are a go if not otherwise mentioned.)

So as of right now, there absolutely IS Steady Aim, if your group plays with it. Of course we have no idea what 2024 will bring. Bun NO IDEA does not mean we can make whatever we fear up and then state it as fact, just because we think it will be so.

You may wind up right, but it's far too early to tell, in particular when the only info we have tells us the opposite. Extant rules are on ATM, unless they've been revised. Steady Aim has not.

Did I state something as fact that isn't?

In any event, we'll see. Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that. But, again, we'll see.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
Did I state something as fact that isn't?

I don't know. I could easily be confusing parts of the discussion involving you for someone else if we're talking about my overall feelings on the subject after reading this entire thread. I do think it was you that said that Steady Aim was out (which it's not ATM - at least not any more than it's out of anyone's game who's not using it as an option) which is, I think, what I was talking about at that moment.

Still, I don't mean for you to take it too severely. I just see a lot of fearmongering when it comes to playtesting. I mean, even the designers don't know what the final books will look like yet - that's the whole point of playtesting. So it's always strange to me when people read a thing in a playtest packet and assume that something is "this way now". It's NOT. It's "let's try it this way and see how it goes".

I mean look at the Crit rules. As far as we can tell, they scrapped the first packet's Crit idea before even getting feedback on it. The whole thing's in flux. There's only so much we should conclude from anything yet. Fear? Fine. It's reasonable to worry that any rule you don't like will continue forward. Conclude that it will for sure? Waste of time. IMO.

Note that I'm not saying YOU SPECIFICALLY are doing this. It's just all over the place, so I felt like talking about it. Right this second, I happen to be talking to you, but I assume others are reading it too. Much of what I'm saying are just my general thoughts on the subject.

In any event, we'll see.
Agreed.

Obviously some of the new content is incompatible with Tasha's (and Xanathar's), and it's hard for me to imagine they'll say, "Use all the stuff from those books that's not contradicted by the new books" or something like that. But, again, we'll see.
Yeah, who knows how it will work? But so far, all we have to go on is the playtest specifically tells us to use any rules that aren't mentioned, and that the 50th Anniversary Books will be "backwards compatible" (whatever THAT means). Unless we're going to assume that they're either lying to us, or at least spinning it, and are wrong about those things, we ought not to go too far down the rabbit hole (I agree that a bit of skepticism is reasonable).

At least we shouldn't judge what we have with things we assume will happen. Again, IMO (and all that). Do what you like. That's my two bits.
 


And I want to add, that tge change for the class should not be regarded in isolation. Instead you need to factor in other (planned) changes, some of which we know about, some of which we don't.

Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.
 

Kobold Stew

Last Guy in the Airlock
Supporter
Like the idea that not being able to take expertise in Thieves' Tools. You are absolutely fair to not like it! But it's NOT a nerf! For example: Let's say you have a Level 3 DEX 16 rogue with TT expertise picking a lock. The "old" way would have you rolling 1d20+7 to pick the lock. The "new" way, you'd take expertise in Sleight-of-Hand instead (not because you're somehow differently skilled, but because that IS the new way the game models the ability to pick locks!) and you'd roll 2d20(High)+7. That's a buff.

You can prefer the old way all you like, of course! But it's still a buff.
I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale.

Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy. :D
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Every scream: "OMG, wizards killed tge rogue" is very premature, as we have only seen 1/4th of the classes and probably even less of the other rules.

Totally agree with this. My feedback will be that although I like the utility buffs, both reducing and simplifying combat damage would not be worth the trade-off, to me.

But anybody who thinks the sky is falling over any of this (“WHAT!?!?!?? Guidance cantrip on limited use!!! That’s OUTRAGEOUS!!!!”) is losing sight of what these playtests are meant to be.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I take your point here, and in some ways it's the limited applicability of the terms being used. My concern is niche erosion, which maybe falls outside of the nerf/buff scale.

Each class should be distinct, should have a niche, and be able to hold their own in a party. For me, that's axiomatic. When one class is weakened in that respect, and it's a class that already had a reduced niche identity in this edition, I get worried. When it's also one of the very few non-magical options to players, I get grumpy. :D

Yes, niche protection is a fair concern, but has nothing to do with buff/nerf. Though I would argue that they're simply trying to broaden the potential party make-up with niche overlap. Parties used to essentially "need" two classes - a Cleric (to heal) and a Rogue (to deal with traps and locks). Just like they made it possible to skip the cleric (if you have a Bard, Druid, Paladin, or Ranger) but the cleric is still the best healer, we have a situation developing where you can skip the Rogue, if you have a Bard or Ranger (or Artificer).

Is the rogue still the best trap/lock expert? Maybe not, but healing (because it involves magic) has soooo many more points where you can get one thing but not the other to make one the "best" while trap/locks are two or three skill proficiencies. I think it could be argued that the rogue still has the potential to have the most of those.

OH! And the Thief can do it as a bonus action as part of Cunning Action, so the Thief, at least, is still the best at the niche.
 

Ptmackim

Villager
Not having use an option severely makes the subclass a lot more unfun. Especially with the new twf rules, use an object just to draw one more dagger would be incredibly useful.
Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses
 

Totally agree. Use an object with Fast Hands makes the Thief an extremely creative choice, and it is really the only character I ever played who uses any of the adventuring equipment in the PHB. Taking that away makes it much less fun, esp compared to other subclasses

This would make a case for changing those ineractions with objects generally a bonus action. This way we actually might see them used on a regular basis and this would explain the sleight of hand change.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top